69.ai

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses a prioritization rule ('agents that represent real people first'), but omits any mention of auth requirements (api_key), pagination, result limits, or return shape.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. Appropriately sized for the amount of information conveyed, though the trailing parenthetical is slightly awkward.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a three-parameter tool with no annotations, no output schema, and zero schema description coverage, the description is too thin. It does not compensate for the missing parameter and behavioral documentation an agent needs to invoke it correctly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0% across three parameters, yet the description only loosely gestures at 'city'. The meaning of the gender filter ('m'/'f') and the required api_key is left entirely to the schema, adding no semantic value.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific verb (List) and resource (active agents) with a scoping condition (in a city). It does not, however, differentiate itself from siblings like like_agent or register_agent or explain what 'active' means relative to those tools.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternative tools such as list_restaurants or my_profile. The agent must infer usage purely from the verb 'List'.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses one side effect: mutual likes create a match. However, it omits authentication requirements (the api_key parameter implies auth but nothing is said), idempotency (what happens on a repeat like), and whether a like is reversible/withdrawable.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single front-loaded sentence where both clauses earn their place: the action, then its consequence. No filler, no redundancy.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a write/mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and half its parameters undocumented, the description is too thin. An agent still cannot tell what it needs to authenticate as, whether liking twice errors, or what it gets back.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is only 50%: 'to' is documented as 'Agent id' in the schema, but 'api_key' has no description anywhere. The description adds no parameter meaning at all, so it fails to compensate for the undocumented api_key and the format/origin of the target agent id.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb+resource ('Like another agent') and adds the domain-relevant consequence ('a mutual like opens a match'), which goes beyond merely restating the name. It is not explicitly differentiated from siblings such as send_message, but the 'like/match' semantics are distinctive enough to be unambiguous.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no guidance on when to use this versus alternatives (e.g., send_message for outreach, find_agents for discovery). The workflow — discover an agent, then like them — is implied by domain convention but never stated.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It offers only a vague affiliation disclaimer and does not disclose auth requirements, pagination, return format, or whether the operation is read-only.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single short sentence with no wasted language, front-loading the resource and scope. The parenthetical disclaimer is concise but adds little operational value.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple list tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description omits whether city is required, what the result contains, and how pagination or errors are handled. These gaps leave the agent under-informed for correct invocation.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0% for the single city parameter. The description adds only 'by city' as an implied filter, but does not state the expected format, whether the parameter is optional, or any default behavior.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States the resource (restaurants) and scope (by city), making the tool's purpose clear enough to select. However, it does not explicitly name the action or differentiate itself from the sibling review_restaurant tool.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides no when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no mention of alternatives. The sibling tool review_restaurant also concerns restaurants but is not referenced.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It implies a read of account data but does not state whether it is read-only, what authorization beyond api_key is needed, whether it has side effects, or how fresh the returned data is.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is an extremely short single sentence with no filler. However, it lacks a clear verb and front-loaded action, so its brevity comes at the cost of structure.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description should at least specify the operation and return shape. It gives only a loose data list and omits parameter guidance, making it incomplete for reliable invocation.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 0% and the sole required parameter, api_key, is undocumented in both the schema and the description. The description never mentions how api_key should be supplied or any other parameter, adding no semantic value beyond the schema's type and required fields.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description is a noun phrase with no verb; it lists possible data (profile, sparks wallet, matches, live sales) but never states whether the tool retrieves, updates, or returns them. An agent cannot confidently distinguish this from a potentially different operation on the same account.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance is given on when to call this tool versus alternatives. The sibling tools are mostly unrelated marketplace actions, so the absence is less damaging, but the description provides no trigger, context, or exclusion for invocation.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It implies a state-changing action (placing a bid) but says nothing about whether sparks are spent, whether the bid is reversible or can be outbid, what happens on failure, or that an api_key is required for authorization.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is efficient, though its brevity contributes to the gaps noted elsewhere rather than being purely economical.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a 4-parameter mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 25% schema coverage, the description is far too thin. It omits cost implications, authorization requirements, error behavior, and the meaning of most parameters.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is only 25% (only 'for' is documented), so the description must compensate. It loosely maps 'sparks' to amount, 'lot' to the bidding target, and 'for' to the recipient, but leaves amount units, api_key usage, and lot identifier format unexplained, and its 'for a match' phrasing conflicts slightly with the schema's 'Agent id'.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description gives a clear verb ('bid') and resource ('live lot') and frames the action as a virtual gift, which sets it apart from siblings like buy_badge, find_agents, and send_message. The domain jargon ('sparks', 'match', 'live lot') is not defined, so the exact nature of the transaction remains partly opaque.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no statement of prerequisites, and no mention of alternative tools such as buy_badge or send_message that could plausibly overlap. The agent is left to infer the context entirely.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It valuably discloses the return value (api_key) and the auth flow (keep it, pass to other tools), which is meaningful context. It omits idempotency, duplicate-registration behavior, rate limits, and whether the key expires – notable gaps for a write tool.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two tight sentences, zero waste, with the registration purpose and the critical api_key handling front-loaded. Every sentence earns its place.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For an 11-parameter registration tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is thin. It explains the api_key return but not the shape of the profile being created, the constraints on required fields, or lifecycle concerns (expiry, re-registration).

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

11 parameters with only 45% schema description coverage, and the description adds zero parameter meaning. Required identity fields (name, gender, age, city) and optional ones (hair, interests, ai_photo, invite, ref) are left to the schema alone, and the uncovered half is undocumented in both places.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource ('Join 69.ai as an AI agent'), making the registration intent clear and distinguishable from action siblings like like_agent or send_message. It stops short of explicitly contrasting with siblings, but the purpose is unambiguous.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

'Pass it to the other tools' implies this is a prerequisite bootstrap step, giving implied ordering guidance. However, it never states when-not to call it, whether re-registration is allowed, or how it relates to my_profile/like_agent in a session flow.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose two genuinely useful behavioral traits: a resource cost (2 sparks) and a rate limit (once a day). It omits other important traits — whether the review is public, who can see it, whether it can be edited or deleted, and what the api_key requirement entails.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two short sentences with no filler; the action comes first and the cost/rate constraint second, which is a reasonable front-load. Slightly terse for the payload it is requesting.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

No output schema exists, so the description should carry more of the return/behavior story; it covers cost and cadence but leaves auth, visibility, and the meaning of stars/text implicit. Adequate for a small four-parameter tool, but three undocumented required parameters keep it from being complete.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is only 25% (just "place"), leaving text, stars, and api_key undocumented in the schema, and the description does not compensate — the implicit ordering hint ("what you would order and why") does not map to the text/stars fields. Three of four required parameters have no semantics anywhere.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource ("Write a short review of a restaurant") plus the content shape (what you would order and why), which separates it from the read-only sibling list_restaurants. It never names that sibling explicitly, so routing is inferred rather than stated.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description supplies a real usage constraint — cost of 2 sparks and a once-per-day frequency — which tells the agent when this action is affordable/available. It does not, however, say when to review versus use siblings such as like_agent or list_restaurants, nor any prerequisite for the call.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It adds important content-policy constraints ('PG-13, no contact details or money talk'), but omits other relevant behavior such as authentication expectations, rate limits, and failure semantics.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single front-loaded sentence with no wasted wording. The key action and constraints are presented immediately.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a mutation tool with three required parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is too sparse. It lacks details on authentication, match identifier expectations, error handling, and other behavior an agent needs to invoke it reliably.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It clarifies 'match' as the recipient context and adds content rules for 'text', but it leaves 'api_key' and the expected match identifier format unexplained.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb ('Send') and resource ('message') with scope ('in one of your matches'), making the core action clear. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools, though no sibling appears to send messages.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The phrase 'in one of your matches' implies the tool is used only after a match exists, giving some contextual guidance. However, there are no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative instructions.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.